RADIOACTIVE iodine is widely used to treat overactive thyroid glands and
thyroid cancers. But when a patient becomes radioactive through this treatment,
it can pose a health hazard to anyone鈥攕uch as hospital nurses鈥攚ho is
in close contact with them for long periods. As 快猫短视频 reported
recently, a single alpha or beta particle could damage a whole group of body cells
(8 December 2001, p 15).
The issue was brought to a head recently after a special case emerged. It
became clear that a thyroid patient required prolonged radiation treatment and
close nursing attention. Radiation physicists were obliged to draw up additional
guidelines to safeguard the staff nursing the patient.
Junior health minister Yvette Cooper is now responsible for environmental
health. She told me that current legislation requires all staff working with
ionising radiation to be adequately trained, and also that all necessary
arrangements are in hand to ensure that they are not exposed to unnecessary
doses of radiation. Specific guidelines already exist for nursing patients who
are receiving standard treatment with radioactive iodine.
Advertisement
Cooper went on to say that in drawing up their additional guidelines the
radiation physicists had made sure that the doses of radiation given were within
the limits for nurses exposed as part of their work.
Clearly, careful attention must always be given whenever nursing and
ancillary staff face problems created by new situations.
ALL praise to Andrew Bennett, chairman of the Commons Environment
subcommittee. He got wind of the fact that the government intended to 鈥渢alk out鈥�
John Randall鈥檚 private member鈥檚 Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill and thus deny
it a committee stage hearing. Bennett rightly raised Cain over the issue. After
all, Randall鈥檚 bill had been drawn first in a ballot among MPs.
The bill aims to provide a firm footing for the establishment, protection and
management of a network of nationally important marine areas in the territorial
waters of England and Wales. It鈥檚 not perfect, as Randall himself tactfully
admits, and the government might have legitimate objections over matters such as
inspections. But it would be totally wrong for 鈥減olicy wonks鈥� in Downing Street
or at the Department of Trade and Industry to snuff out a top Commons private
member鈥檚 bill鈥攑articularly after the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs helped Randall to formulate this much-needed piece of
legislation.
I DON鈥橳 take kindly to fad words, especially when they make it into
Hansard. After all, it鈥檚 the official record of the daily proceedings of
Parliament, not a hotbed of modernism. Or am I mistaken? Suddenly the word
鈥渁nonymised鈥� turned up. It鈥檚 a new one to me, though I gather that The New
Oxford Dictionary of English says it has been around since the 1970s.
Angela Eagle, a junior Home Office minister, used the word in a government
response to a report on public access to information on research using animals.
She said, 鈥淲e agree in principle that anonymised information regarding
infringements should be published and will consider how this might best be
补肠丑颈别惫别诲.鈥�
I can see why information about this delicate matter should be kept
anonymous. The mention of anything about the use of animals in research tends to
stir some of the extreme branches of animal rights activists into action. I
shall be interested to see how Eagle, whose responsibilities extend to licences
for animal experimentation, puts the principle into practice.